Re: Debian development modem (was The broken libjpeg-6b is in RH 5.1)
"David Engel " <david@ods.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:15:54AM -0400, Steve Dunham wrote:
> > The reason I Bcc'd this here was as an example of the advantages
> > Debian garners from an open development model and a dedication to
> > quality.
> Warning: the (brief) rantings of an extremely frustrated developer lie
> ahead.
> On the flip side, that open development model and dedication to
> quality, when combined with a lot of indiferrence and lack of
> leadership, means public releases only get made about once every two
> years. Debian had a mostly libc6 based system long before RedHat, yet
> RedHat is releasing their second libc6 system while Debian still has
> no clue when, or even if, it will release.
(I would suggest that release delays are rising exponentially, but I
was around before the first release.)
I have an idea that may remedy this: Split Debian into a core and
non-core distribution. The core distribution would contain the base
operating system and be worked on my a smaller group of developers.
It would have it's own release schedule. (I working under the
hypothesis that all of the extra stuff is causing the big delay in the
release.) The core release would work similar to the current Debian,
with a possible addition of a CVS source tree. (But core developers
should only check out what they are working on, and use push
technologies to get updates to other pieces.)
For non-core packages, I'd imagine a "stable" and "unstable" for the
last two incompatible core releases and for the current unstable core
release. (frozen core releases would take the place of one of the
first two.) There would have to be some criteria for moving a package
from unstable to stable.
Steve
dunham@cps.msu.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: